You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s attempt, during trial, to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer breath test was properly denied. Defense counsel had told the court, during the pretrial suppression hearing. defendant did not wish to contest the validity of his consent to the breath test and, consequently,  the prosecutor did not introduce a video of the procedure:

A defendant may move to suppress the results of a chemical test administered pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) (see CPL 710.20[5]) by filing a motion “within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application” (see CPL 255.20[1]). CPL 255.20(3) prescribes that for pretrial motions filed outside the 45-day limitation, the court “must entertain and decide on its merits, at any[]time before the end of the trial, any appropriate pre-trial motion based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised within the period specified.” The section also provides that any other motion not filed within the specified time “may be summarily denied.”

The record indicates that when counsel made the omnibus motion, dated September 12, 2017, defendant was well aware of the facts underlying the administration of the Intoxilyzer breath test and, for reasons that are not apparent, chose not to file a motion on that ground. People v Marte, 2021 NY Slip Op 04648, First Dept 8-5-21

 

You might also like
NYU DID NOT ACT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT SUSPENDED THREE STUDENTS FOR ATTENDING OFF-CAMPUS ROOFTOP PARTIES IN AUGUST 2020 WHERE THE ATTENDEES DID NOT WEAR MASKS AND DID NOT PRACTICE SOCIAL DISTANCING (FIRST DEPT).
Conviction Based Upon Plea Where Defendant Was Not Advised of the Period of Postrelease Supervision Is Unconstitutional for Predicate Felony Purposes—Catu Applied Retroactively
MALPRACTICE TREATING THE INITIAL MEDICAL INJURY AT ANOTHER HOSPITAL IS A FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE INITIAL MEDICAL INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY WHICH RECEIVED A DIRECT BENEFIT FROM AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ARBITRATION PROVISION IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
Insurer of Contractor for Its (Primarily) Interior Work Was Not Entitled to Summary Judgment (Disclaiming Coverage) in Action Stemming from Building Collapse of Unknown Cause
DEED MADE UNDER FALSE PRETENSES IS VOID AB INITIO RENDERING THE RELATED MORTGAGE INVALID; THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT PRECLUDE RECONSIDERING A MATTER WHERE THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING THE TRIAL, REQUESTED TO BE RELIEVED FROM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
IN THIS SCAFFOLD-FALL CASE, EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD BUT DID NOT REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REJECTED THE LANDLORD’S CALCULATION OF RENT OVERCHARGES... RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING...